Best telephoto ranged lens for Ef(-S) mount

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by clams, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. clams macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    #1
    So now I finally have the money to upgrade lenses. I'm thinking of a telephoto ranged lens for the 40D. I shoot a lot in low light conditions so f/2.8 is a must. So far, I looked at the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8, Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, and Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro. I'm looking to spend at or under 500 bucks. Do you guys have any other suggestions?
     
  2. anubis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #2
    Have you tried the sticky at the top of the Digital Photography forum Links for camera and lens shoppers? It contains links to lens review web sites that will help you make your decision.
     
  3. clams thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    #3
    I have. I was just wondering if you guys had any opinions or experiences.
     
  4. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #4
    What are you shooting? why do you need 2.8? Is this for macro or do you just happen to pick 2 macro lenses?
     
  5. tompon1923 macrumors 6502

    tompon1923

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Location:
    15°35'30.45S 54°31'22.17E
    #5
    I shoot nikon, and have a 105mm f/2.8 micro. I find it much too short to be a real tele-lens even on a 1.5 crop sensor. If I was shooting canon, I would definitely get the 70-200 f/4 and just turn the ISO up a notch.
     
  6. neutrino23 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Location:
    SF Bay area
    #6
    Maybe not as long as you are thinking of, but you could consider the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro AF. The tests reveal it to to be extremely sharp, almost flawless, even at f/2.8. I've got one and love it. It is amazing to take a photo and see that the results are sharp even when enlarged to 100%.

    Street price ~$430.
     
  7. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #7
    It depends on the subject and how close you can get if 100mm is long enough. It is a good length for many sbjects but you are not goig to be able to shoot wildlife or most sports. But excpt for those extreames it's a good mid range tele.

    If budget is an issue, I would always advise use used Canon over any of the third party lenses. Some advantges of a used Canon lenses are (1) it will hold it's value, you will be able to sell it for close to your buying price. (2) The quality is better.
     
  8. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #8
    WEll, ebay a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens..should be able to get one for 500 or so...and they are nice ( have one and it really rocks. heavy but nice).
     
  9. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #9
    If you don't need to shoot macro and just want a really sharp, fast, fun lens, then consider the Canon 100mm f/2. Its MTF chart is on par with any L lens (it's known as one of the "hidden L" lenses), its bokeh is divine, and the compression it gives at wide apertures for subject separation is loads of fun. I find it gives me plenty of reach; I rarely need more. Best of all, it's quite affordable. It's also very well built and has USM.

    However, if you need macro, the 100mm f/2.8 is nearly as sharp (according to Canon's MTF charts) and is only a stop slower. That one costs quite a bit more, though.
     
  10. localghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
  11. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
  12. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #12
    If I had to pick between the three I would get the canon. On a crop camera its a nice portrait lens OR a nice macro if you need it.
     
  13. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #13
    The Canon 100mm Macro is a great little lens, and not very expensive. For a nice replacement of the kit lens, I would recommend a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Its motor is a tad noisy, but the lens is very fast and sharp. I love this little lens.

    For a zoom of excellent quality, and close to your budget (around $500.00), nothing beats the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (the one without IS). Buy before it disappears from the stores' shelves. Just crank-up the ISO if you need to.
     
  14. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #14
    "cranking up ISO" is not always an option. what happens when you're at 3200 and the shutter's still too slow?

    get an f/2.8 lens or faster. even if f/4 is ok, you can use one stop less ISO or double the shutter speed to make sure the shot isn't ruined from blur.

    the Canon 85 and 100 are optically identical, just pick the focal length you like better. if you like zooms better, there's nothing better than the Tokina for your application short of a 70-200 f/2.8.

    that said, you should get a flash or real low-light ability.
     
  15. clams thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    #15
    Yeah I would have to agree with you about the cranking up the ISO. I always preferred speed over IS or higher ISOs. I was curious what you meant about "real low-light ability" though.
     
  16. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #16
    if you photograph anything moving and/or anything with depth, you can't just use fast lenses. for example:

    a large, very not-well lit ballroom. a good, natural light exposure in the best-lit areas is 1/60, f/2.8, ISO 3200. I was taking photos of people moving around, primarily with a 50 and a 100mm. at f/2, it's still 1/125 for a good exposure, which isn't enough to reliably freeze motion and barely enough to counter camera shake. at f/2, there's also not enough DoF for more than one person. so I either maybe freeze motion and get one person in focus or maybe get more than one person in focus - I usually needed f/4 or so, but compromised at f/2.8 most of the time - and lose a bunch of shots due to subject motion or camera shake.

    in reality, a fast lens (as in, say, f/2 or faster) is more for DoF control than low-light ability.
     
  17. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #17
    I would very highly recommend getting the Canon 200mm ƒ/2.8L (version I if you can find one) as it is very sharp, even with a 2x extender on it. If that is a bit long for your needs, then I would concur and recommend the 100mm ƒ/2, it is another stellar lens. I own both, so if you want sample pictures I can send you some :)
     
  18. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #18
    I would very whole-heartedly recommend the Canon 135 f/2.0L, but I'm afraid it just doesn't fit into your budget even 2nd hand so it might not be an option. Therefore I'd say Canon 100 f/2.0 could be your best shot.
     
  19. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #19
    Well, all depends on how much time you spend taking photos in low light or not. For example, 99.9% of my time is spent taking photos outdoors during the day, so lenses around f/5.6 aren't a problem whatsoever, not even when the ISO is on auto (400-800).

    The high noise thing is overrated, since a lot of it can be removed with Noise Ninja, Neat Image, and others applications. What you get from the Canon 70-200 f/4L is some outstanding IQ from merely $500.00. There isn't a lens around in that price range that can even get close. The OP mentioned $500.00, and such a sum of money is not going to be enough for a fast 70-200mm lens. Even the 70-200 f/4 with IS costs twice as much as the 70-200 USM (no IS). That translates to perhaps $1,000.00, long past the OP's budget.

    If the OP wants to shoot in low light, he better spend some big cash in fast lenses, and expensive flashes. Otherwise he has no options but to boost ISO.
     
  20. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #20
    I disagree, you'll lose a lot of detail at higher ISOs, and even more when you remove the noise. I've used Noise Ninja before and you just lose too much detail when shooting at high ISOs to begin with and even more with noise reduction software, even Noise Ninja. In my opinion it is always better to have brighter glass than to crank up the ISO, losing a little bit of depth of field is a lot better than losing detail for what's in focus.
     
  21. oblomow macrumors 68020

    oblomow

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #21
    I agree! And a 2nd hand can be bought for €380. At least, that what I paid for a used Mk1.
     
  22. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #22
    But my point still stands. The OP has a budget of perhaps $500.00 for a lens. How can he purchase bright glass without the cash needed to pay for it?

    here is a review of the 70-200 f/4L USM:
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
     
  23. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #23
  24. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #24
    Canon 200mm ƒ/2.8L, I got my mark I version for $425 shipped used.

    The mark 1 is the way to go, same great quality but for a lot cheaper :D

    The OP never said that they were against buying used. The mark 2 and mark 1 version of this lens are pretty much identical except one has a built in hood while the other doesn't. The mark 1 can be had for at or below $500. And there is no IS version of the 200mm ƒ/2.8L, you might be confusing it with the 70-200mm?
     
  25. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #25
    That was a real nice deal. It's price has gone up steadily for the past few months. I bought mine new for around $670.00 or so three years ago.
     

Share This Page